Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Discloses that PDF can be persisted and returns a signed URL, and that translation costs 0.1 credit per result. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which align with the described behavior. Adds context beyond annotations without contradiction, though it could clarify the idempotent nature more explicitly.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is succinct with two paragraphs: the first establishes purpose and context, the second details the two usage paths and export formats. Every sentence carries value, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the essential aspects: purpose, input parameters, and key options. Given the complexity (nested object with many flags), the description relies on the schema for sub-property details, which is acceptable. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, though the description could briefly mention that reports are generated synchronously or any limitations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds meaningful context for the ID parameters and export types by explaining their relationship (single vs. combined report) and the three output formats. While the nested export_features_result object is not elaborated in the description, its sub-properties are well-documented in the schema. The description compensates for the 40% schema coverage by clarifying the core parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool generates interview result reports in HTML/PDF/JSON formats for completed interviews, serving as decision-support material. It specifies the target audience (human reviewer) and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on report generation rather than creation, listing, or result details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit instruction to provide either interview_result_id for a single result or interview_result_ids for a combined multi-result report. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like get_interview_result_details for raw data, though the context of 'completed interview' implies applicable scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.